There's Sharks in them there waters...

cyrusdvirus

From the Times

Nuclear submarines off US coast 'nothing to worry about' says Russia
(Dmitry Lovetsky/AP)



Moscow accused the United States of hysteria today after reports that Russian nuclear submarines were patrolling off the East Coast of America.

Russian officials responded vehemently to accusations that they were dabbling in Cold War-style cat-and-mouse manoeuvring but did not deny that two vessels had entered international waters just 200 miles of the US coast.

“Activities of Russian submarines in the world’s oceans outside their own waters do not violate international maritime law and are within normal practice,” a military-diplomatic source told the Russian state media.

US defence and intelligence officials told the New York Times that two Akula class nuclear-powered submarines had approached the US a few days after Vladmir Putin was photographed testing a Russian submarine during his holiday in Siberia.

The Russian military source said that Moscow would not comment on the location of its fleet and suggested that the US should also refrain from discussing their whereabouts.

“The Russian navy systematically pinpoints the location of NATO submarines, including US Navy submarines, in direct proximity to the territorial waters of the Russian Federation," the official said.

“This however has never been a reason to make a lot of noise in the press... consequently, any hysteria in such a case is inappropriate."

US officials claimed that the Pentagon is concerned by the first such military move in more than a decade.

The episode does not appear to pose any immediate threat to the United States, but it echoes the Soviet and US military tit-for-tat measures taken during the Cold War when Moscow and Washington routinely sent submarines towards one another’s coasts to gather intelligence and track fleet movements.

A senior US Defence Department official said: “Any time the Russian Navy does something so out of the ordinary it is cause for worry.

“We’ve known where they were and we’re not concerned about our ability to track the subs,” said the official. “We’re concerned just because they are there."

Norman Polmar, a naval historian and submarine warfare expert, said: “I don’t think they’ve put two first-line nuclear subs off the US coast in about 15 years."

While Pentagon officials declined to speculate about what weapons may be aboard the vessels, the submarines are not considered to be among the larger Russian submarines that can launch nuclear missiles.

marco murphy

I wonder was Putin onboard

BigDuffman

Putin "testing" Nuclear subs....? Journalistic licence here perhaps? I cant see him using an attack sub as an alternative to a lylo whilst on hollyers?!

iceage

A bit of pony trekking in Siberia I believe, according to the DM.

Overheal

Global Politics here.

Gizmodo.com wrote:

One would think that the Cold War ended a long time ago, but ask the Pentagon officials who are very concerned about the two Russian nuclear-powered Akula-class attack submarines now patrolling the US East Coast. One ping only, Vasily. Akulas—the NATO designation for the Project 971 Shchuka-B Soviet Submarine—are some of the deadliest sea weapons in existence. Not deadly to people on land, as the Russian Typhoons are—the largest submarines ever built, equipped with 20 RSM-52 nuclear ballistic missiles—but to other submarines and ships. Equipped with four 533mm internal torpedo tubes plus six external 533mm, and an extra four 650mm tubes, the Akulas were designed to hunt other vessels, subaquatic or on the surface. And they, according to US intelligence reports, they can do that mighty well. They are the counterpart to the US Los Angeles-class SSN 751 nuclear subs.
These things can launch up to forty torpedoes, mines, and missiles—the later using a separate tube for surface launch. It's equipped with a sophisticated sound reduction system, which was perfected in the 80s with the help of Toshiba, who sold them precision milling systems for that task. At least, according to the US Navy.

So I guess the Cold War never really ended for them, it just took a nap.



Article and Akula-Class Pictures


So each of those RSM-52s has 10 MIRV warheads - I cant remember what the nuke treaties say but some of those are decoys (theres a max number of warheads per missile according to treaty). You're looking at at least 100-200 targets, if not 400... between these two Akulas. From US East they dont have a problem striking Europe either (But what else is new, they could do it all from Dock if they wanted).

Muscling communism while Capitalism is reeling from the latest recession. imo.

Title Trans: Just Visiting

Joey the lips

One ping only..... I love it.....

But i have a question if these are specifically for hunting other ships does this not indicate that this is more of an excercise. If the russians wanted to intimidate the americans surly they would have either sent a radioactive sub leaking all along the east cost or one capable of blowing the sh1t out of every american city or at least the state of kentucky!:D

Overheal

Well when you pack 20 nuclear MIRV missiles as well as your conventional armament. Theyre very much multirole. And by all accounts very effective at each.

But yeah, at some point in the last 48 hours, a Russian Akula came within 230 odd miles of my bed. Thats how a lot of Americans will see it.

But also its about "Hey, we got these subs right up your nose and you didnt see us coming". Its as much as anything a challenge to the US Navy's interception abilities.

I could go on. Theres a multitude of messages I could read from this. The prevalent one, given the timing, is economical - getting right to Cold War II so we are.

Joey the lips

Overheal wrote: »

Well when you pack 20 nuclear MIRV missiles as well as your conventional armament. Theyre very much multirole. And by all accounts very effective at each.

But yeah, at some point in the last 48 hours, a Russian Akula came within 230 odd miles of my bed. Thats how a lot of Americans will see it.

But also its about "Hey, we got these subs right up your nose and you didnt see us coming". Its as much as anything a challenge to the US Navy's interception abilities.

I could go on. Theres a multitude of messages I could read from this.

agreed cant argue there. its just i am not worried if 15 parked in Dublin bay.

Overheal

Even though it would be a complete violation to the UKs* and thus NATO's sovereign water, and theyd be forced to come in and destroy said subs, with much fanfare and fallout?

Yes, Dub Port would be a great place to want 15 Akulas :pac:

*im sketchy on int'l water laws. it shows.

Joey the lips

Overheal wrote: »

Even though it would be a complete violation to the UKs* and thus NATO's sovereign water, and theyd be forced to come in and destroy said subs, with much fanfare and fallout?

Yes, Dub Port would be a great place to want 15 Akulas :pac:

*im sketchy on int'l water laws. it shows.

Look on the bright side I doubt they will blow up south carolina. They are all mad there anyway!

Overheal

On the contrary, Charleston boasts an integral AFB. And Naval Port.

ei.sdraob

Akula class? pfftt thats so 20th century!

how about a Dictator class submarine (theres a ballistic missile joke in there somewhere too)

Sleipnir

Overheal wrote: »

Well when you pack 20 nuclear MIRV missiles as well as your conventional armament. Theyre very much multirole. And by all accounts very effective at each.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. The Akula can't carry mirv'd missiles; nuclear anti-ship missiles only.

America didn't stop patrolling the northern seas when the USSR collapsed (they were shadowing when the Kursk sank) so now the Russians can afford to again, they're doing the same with some attack submarines.
Big deal.

It's no big surprise. American SSBN's have been patrolling in the interim. Which is more dangerous, globally speaking?

Martyr

i posted about this too in CT forum here

Overheal wrote:

So I guess the Cold War never really ended for them, it just took a nap.

"them" as in Russia? bet no news agency in the US reported that Georgia started bombing parts of South Ossetia 1 week after Joe Biden was there..pledging full support from the US.

i guess fox would ignore that, makes sense to wait until russia "starts" the trouble, right?

Muscling communism while Capitalism is reeling from the latest recession. imo.

it's got nothing to do with the "recession"

Sleipnir

Martyr wrote: »

i posted about this too in CT forum here



"them" as in Russia? bet no news agency in the US reported that Georgia started bombing parts of South Ossetia 1 week after Joe Biden was there..pledging full support from the US.

i guess fox would ignore that, makes sense to wait until russia "starts" the trouble, right?

Come on, next you'll be suggesting that Bush agreed to drop Chechyna as an issue if Russia agreed to let them continue to use airbases in southern Russia to mount attacks in Afghanistan. :pac:

Martyr

the 2 videos in the CT thread are over 6 minutes long, yet you managed to respond in 4 minutes..

Well, maybe you can answer the question I asked in the CT thread? or did you not look at it

Why are the US so supportive of Georgia when clearly they're provoking Russia into a conflict?

And the US wants Georgia part of NATO, and France/Germany object.
Why do you think that is?

What is the end objective here? to have Russia fighting Europe for some american interests?

Overheal

Sleipnir wrote: »

Whoa, whoa, whoa. The Akula can't carry mirv'd missiles; nuclear anti-ship missiles only.

America didn't stop patrolling the northern seas when the USSR collapsed (they were shadowing when the Kursk sank) so now the Russians can afford to again, they're doing the same with some attack submarines.
Big deal.

It's no big surprise. American SSBN's have been patrolling in the interim. Which is more dangerous, globally speaking?

When I googled RSM-52 this is what I got.

http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1713&catid=265

Its an ICBM with 10 warhead capacity (reduced to 6 by the START II initiative). That means 6 warheads, each with a yield of up to 100kt, and 4 dummies.

Sleipnir

Overheal wrote: »

When I googled RSM-52 this is what I got.

http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1713&catid=265

Its an ICBM with 10 warhead capacity (reduced to 6 by the START II initiative). That means 6 warheads, each with a yield of up to 100kt, and 4 dummies.

That's what the Typhoon carries, not the Akula.
To quote your own post;

Not deadly to people on land, as the Russian Typhoons are—the largest submarines ever built, equipped with 20 RSM-52 nuclear ballistic missiles—but to other submarines and ships.

Sleipnir

Martyr wrote: »

the 2 videos in the CT thread are over 6 minutes long, yet you managed to respond in 4 minutes..

Good Lord, I've been caught. Don't shoot.

I've spent some time reading about the Cold War; how it started, why it continued and the how it was officially brought to an end.
I've also read a fair bit about the Chechen wars and the oil situation in the Russian states. Six minutes of video doesn't do it for me and I prefer not to form opinions based on that.

Martyr wrote: »

Well, maybe you can answer the question I asked in the CT thread? or did you not look at it

No, I'm not going to answer it yet as there's not a whole lot of information to go on at the moment; it's mostly speculation. What you are trying to do is anticipate America's geopolitical position; which is quite complex (yet quite simple at the same time)

I'm also a bit pissed.

Martyr

"I dont know" would have been sufficient

pepe escobar has done a 3 part analysis of the china/russia/iran/us situation recently, only 2 parts have been uploaded so far.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uowvTCtZws

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UY_rxOlly4

but of course, there isn't enough information.

EDIT:

I'm also a bit pissed

fair enough, when you sober up then!

Overheal

Sleipnir wrote: »

That's what the Typhoon carries, not the Akula.
To quote your own post;

why even mention it. Fear mongering article -_-

Sleipnir

Overheal wrote: »

why even mention it. Fear mongering article -_-

Yeah, probably. Considering the American Ohio is carries far more

24 Trident II D5 SLBM with up to 12 MIRVed nuclear warheads each. 24 x 12= 288 warheads. 18 active Ohio's times 288=5184 warheads.

Compared to Russia's two active Typhoon's which carry a combined total of 40 RSM-52's, 10 warheads each=400 warheads, although their yield is about 200kt whereas the American's are around 100kt.

Overheal

half that figure. STart II will have limited the wahead count on the Trident as well.

Sleipnir

True, if you halve both though, the advantage versus disadvantage is still the same.
Once you start talking KT Vs KT and Warhead Vs Warhead, it becomes academic. Russia could obliterate America but America could obliterate Russia more :pac:

Anyway, I think we're getting off-topic here.
A russian attack sub 250 miles off the coast of America isn't really that big a deal. It wasn't long ago that they were crashing into each other. I'm not saying it's not a significant development in terms of geopolitics, it's just something that people should panic about just yet.

Pride Fighter

Overheal wrote: »

Muscling communism while Capitalism is reeling from the latest recession. imo.

Russia is a far right wing, neo liberal, capitalist, democracy. Very much like the USA. The recession has nothing to do with it.

Sleipnir

Watched it last night and thought it relevant! (well, maybe 'relevant' isn't the right word...)

Victor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_reporting_name
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akula_class_submarine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_class

"Akula" is the NATO reporting name for a Russian class of "hunter-killer" submarines - Project 971 Щука-Б (Shchuka-B, 'Shchuka' meaning pike). This was assigned before hte fall of communism. They are really good at sinking ships and other submarines.

In the meantime, the Soviets had assigned "Akula" as the actual name of Project 941 submarines. These are ballistic missile submarines, really good at destroying medium to large countries.

The news story is referring to Project 971 submarines, probably keeing an eye on the base in Charleston. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/charleston.htm

http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=32.953958~-79.954247&style=h&lvl=17&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1 - weapons storage
http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=32.850317~-79.938498&style=h&lvl=17&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1 - naval ships
http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=pg9mqk8b2mq6&style=b&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&scene=11531294&encType=1

They even have a road called "Missile Haul Road". Now, what kind of missile gets its own road? http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=32.964585~-79.986627&style=r&lvl=17&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1

Right, I'm off the CIA lads are in the driveway.

Overheal

Watch out for the Bobcats carrying Clusterbombs too.

oscarBravo

This thread seems to me more focused on the hardware than the geopolitical implications, so I've moved it from Politics.

Hagar

Thanks oscarBravo.

cyrusdvirus

oscarBravo wrote: »

This thread seems to me more focused on the hardware than the geopolitical implications, so I've moved it from Politics.

BOOOO....we already had our own thread here.... (kidding!!!)

Hagar

Threads merged. Thanks gatecrash.

iceage

I wonder if American subs are lying off from certain Russian sites and installations? Running training exercises of course..

Manic Moran

I'm fairly sure the boat can carry and launch land attack cruise missiles.

The Russians may only have two seaworthy Typhoons, but I'm fairly sure they still have a number of quite servicable Deltas.

NTM

Overheal

Theyve got that new class in development but its not quite ready yet. many missile-related failures.